Look what passes for analysis of the hurricane-climate connection debate at the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900354_pf.html

Note that this is NOT listed as an editorial.   In other words the staff at the Post thinks this is a representation of unbiased news coverage!   However, close inspection of the choices made yet again demonstrate that the author(s) are simply trying to support an editorial opinion while using the costume of news coverage.

They chose a handful of "global warming skeptics" and attempted to prove they are in the minority, might have professional biases leading to their faulty conclusions. ("Hurricane forecasters tend to be more focused on predicting the intensity and paths of individual storms, and often focus on factors such as wind shear and water temperature that can cause a storm to shift within a matter of days or hours, so they tend to emphasize natural variability over long-term climate shifts.")

One scientists was sited as being an oil company hack - "whose group receives funding from the fossil-fuel industry."   That's part of the standard liberal formula these days, isn't it?

The Post also decided not to include comments by the numerous scientists, like Pelke and Gray, who they couldn't impeach based on their status as "hurricane forecasters or in the pocket of big oil."   None of the many Canadian and American academics long considered to be reigning experts in climate science, not merely weather forecasters, were cited because their opinions are not so easily dispensed with.

Picking and choosing the arguments you decide to refute while ignoring myriad others is something usually reserved for criminal defense lawyers' closing arguments.   News is supposed to present all available evidence.   The result of the Post's Sunday climate change diatribe is a dangerously skewed op/ed piece masquerading as "NEWS."   When "Journalism" becomes mere opinion with incomplete representation of facts, regardless of the quality and quantity of "experts" cited, the term generally used to describe it is Yellow Journalism.   This piece in particular should only be used for training puppies.